I partially share your views, but, if you've not already, I'd highly recommend watching one of Aubrey de Grey's talks on the subject. He offers a very different viewpoint, which made me reconsider my thoughts on radical life extension.

As a member of the tl;dr culture, who is too lazy to Google for them himself, I want to ask if you could link the ones you find most interesting/relevant?

The one I attended was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDJ_IjMwT20, which focuses less on whether this stuff is desirable and more on cost-effectiveness. But IIRC he also outlines his reasons why radical life extension is desirable.

You may well be better off trying some of the top Google results -- the recording quality isn't brilliant for this one, and its focus is perhaps a little different to what you want.

Ha ha. I meant a little more curated list ;).

I thought you mike like that ;)

One man's hubris is another's refusal to keep being bullied by nature. I don't see anything bad with wanting to live longer. I don't see anything bad with fighting the "natural state of things" to achieve it. It's sad that throughout history, most humans are just willing to lie down and die.

Preventing it from turning into dystopia is another matter though, well worth of discussing.

Well to be a bit more clear: Enabling everyone to reach an old age by fighting diseases is an honorable and good goal (as long as this is available to everybody and not just those few with deep pockets). But on the other hand, I'm sure that death serves a goal as well. It is not a "problem", but very likely a solution to evolve the species. We should first aim for our 'granted' 120 years life span. I think if we are a very long living species, we will also become a very slowly evolving, very conservative species. I'm also afraid that we cannot know the longterm consequences (sort of like the Soviet project to irrigate the Karakum desert, which resulted in the death of Lake Aral half a century later).

> Well to be a bit more clear: Enabling everyone to reach an old age by fighting diseases is an honorable and good goal (as long as this is available to everybody and not just those few with deep pockets).

We might need to settle for a middle ground. Like for many other advances we had, we need rich to bankroll the R&D that will later lead to technology being available for rest. How to prevent it from turning into dystopia is another discussion.

> But on the other hand, I'm sure that death serves a goal as well. It is not a "problem", but very likely a solution to evolve the species.

It might serve a goal, but this is not our goal. Evolution may "value" inclusive fitness and death is its engine, but humans do not care about passing genes, they care about love, fun, intellectual growth, a good life. The process of evolution is not something we value.

You can wax philosophical all you'd like, when the time comes to choose between dying or not dying, you're going to pick not dying.

Maybe not forever, but for awhile.

Just use the arrow.

One man's hubris is another's refusal to keep being bullied by other humans.

It's sad that throughout history, most humans are just willing to let fellow humans lie down and die at the hands of a powerful few.

Now we are moving away from the science and technology of extending lifespan and into the mire of politics. Just go watch 'When Worlds Collide'and call it a day.

If you fight against humans, it's usually not called hubris but fighting for your freedom and a right to live. I just think we should call it the same if our enemy is not a man, but the Grim Reaper himself.

Yeah with immortality will come changes. Folks likely to become very, very conservative if they have not decades but centuries at risk. Imprisonment for traffic tickets; voting age increased to 100 or more; heck just the change in the interest rate would rock the economy!